Peter Charles wrote:



Many species are invaders without having been introduced by humans.
Indigenous can simply mean (in reference to humans) the original
inhabitants or those who have been there the longest, considering that
the original inhabitants may be long gone. I don't think it is a term
that works well in the non-human world. Humans are part of the
natural world and they have been shaping it even at the prehistoric
level. The indigenous populations of North America were shaping the
flora and fauna well before Columbus showed up. Perhaps some brought
animals (dogs?) across Beringia -- we don't know. We can't just look
at human intervention as a recent, Western thing, though obviously the
rate of extinction and introduction has greatly accelerated with the
spread of Western industrialized society. But it is just that, an
acceleration, not a beginning.


But that acceleration is overwhelming.

I also think it is a recent thing. The amount of time that man has made
any significant impact on the world's environment is just a mote in
god's eye compared to the evolutionary process as a whole. However, in
that short period of time, man has had more impact on the world's
environment than any other species throughout time.



For the sake of conservation, we can adopted the label of "native" --
meaning not introduced by humans. It was there before human arrival
and intervention (or more popularly, before the coming of the white
man). We can choose to focus on the time span after the start of the
Industrial Revolution as before that period, human intervention
happened at a much slower rate. For example, the development of corn
from its tiny, original wild state to the large, domesticated cob
today, took the indigenous peoples of North America centuries to
accomplish. Modern genetic manipulation today could achieve the same
thing over a decade or so.

Or much less.



That said, it is a worthwhile thing to preserve native species just
from the diversity aspect alone. While some would try to place value
on some native species and not others (favouring brookies over an
endangered sucker), we should not do so.

We're in agreement on that.


It is ironic to read the
whining that recently introduced species are harming other introduced
species that we happen to like.


Yeah and that "liking" changes over time. Carp were widely stocked in
the States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. And now?? Tough to
turn back the clock.

Willi